[UPDATED] Attorney: 'Too political'

THE media were excluded from the plea agreement hearing for British Queen’s Counsel Vincent Nelson after concerns of adverse pre-trial publicity, unfairness to his two alleged co-accused and his own genuine fear to his personal security “because of the highly politically charged case,” were raised by his attorney and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC.

A little over a month after he appeared in the Port of Spain Magistrates’ Court on three charges of conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption, Nelson arrived at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain under heavy security for his plea agreement hearing. He was brought to court in a heavily tinted black SUV which drove into the basement at the Hall of Justice and while his hearing was taking place, there were more than a handful of policemen positioned just outside the courtroom and in the foyer of the first floor of the courthouse.

Nelson was expected to put in an appearance on May 16, when the case came up for hearing for the first time before Justice Malcolm Holdip, but his attorneys said the short notice given to them made it difficult for him to secure a flight to TT.

Nelson lives in the UK, and was granted permission to leave the country and return for the hearing of his case. He is on $100,000 cash bail. He is represented by British QC Tom Allen and local attorney Roger Kawalsingh.

Nelson, a Jamaican-born attorney, is expected to plead guilty to his role in an alleged conspiracy with former attorney general Anand Ramlogan and former UNC senator Gerald Ramdeen in connection with a series of financial transactions and alleged rewards involving legal fees paid to him for representation in state briefs, which he obtained while Ramlogan was attorney general.

Ramlogan and Ramdeen were subsequently charged with conspiracy to contravene the Prevention of Corruption Act; conspiracy to engage in money laundering; and conspiracy to misbehave in public office.

On Thursday, Holdip is expected to give his ruling on the plea agreement deal struck between Nelson and the State, after which Nelson is expected to enter his plea.

In accordance with the provisions of the provisions of the recently-proclaimed Criminal Procedure (Plea Discussion and Plea Agreement) Act, certain steps are to take place before the judge signs off on the agreement.

Those include the disclosure by the prosecution of the substance of and reasons for the agreement and, before accepting it, the judge has to ensure an accused was not induced to enter the agreement and knows of the consequences of it.

The judge also has to ensure that the agreement is justifiable.

Gaspard hitched his application for a private hearing on section 24(1) of the Act which provides for such hearings to be held in open court, unless the court decides it should be held in camera.
Gaspard agreed his application went against the norm, and what was intended by the legislature but he explained that Nelson had agreed to turn state witness against the two other people facing related charges.

He said the charges against Nelson and the others arose from the same factual origin. He also pointed to the statement of agreed facts filed in Nelson’s matter which revealed the evidence against the others. “You will appreciate there is some symmetry in the matter before you. My submission is that type of symmetry makes for heightened degree of sensitivity as far as the carriage of this and those related matters are concerned,” Gaspard submitted.

He also said there was the need to ensure that nothing was done to attract the issue of adverse pre-trial publicity for any of the parties, also pointing out that the case against Ramlogan and Ramdeen were at the committal stage in the magistrates’ court.

“While the proceedings would ordinarily attract an open-court hearing, it is my respectful submission in all the circumstances the court ought to deviate from the norm and conduct the plea agreement hearing in camera,” Gaspard said.

In support of the application, Nelson’s attorney agreed that the matter should be “freely reported” on but the facts of the case called for it to be heard in camera and urged the judge to exercise his common-law discretion to grant the application.

Allen said it was a species of hearings but that the “highly-sensitive” statement of agreed facts detailed and reflected on the conduct and content of material provided to the prosecution.
“I acknowledge the concerns of the DPP on pre-trial publicity and unfairness to the accused but also on top of that there is a genuine fear, given this is a highly politically charged case, the more material into the public domain the greater considerable risk to my client's own personal security.”

He said should the court decide to go against granting the application, he asked that the contents of the agreed facts not be made public as it was “deeply intimidating.”

Holdip, in his ruling, said while the court was always mindful of its discretion to exclude the public and, more so, the press, as the fourth estate in the proceedings, he was granting the application because of what he had read of the evidence, which, he said, might well touch on other matters and to protect not only Nelson, but also the sanctity of the hearing of the other two.

This story was originally published with the title "Media blackout for Vincent Nelson's plea agreement hearing" and has been adjusted to include additional details. See original post below.

The media was put out of the plea agreement hearing for British Queen’s Counsel Vincent Nelson after Director of Public Prosecution Roger Gaspard, SC, made an application for the case to be heard in private.

The application was made, supported by the defence, and granted by Justice Malcolm Holdip.

In his application, Gaspard said Nelson would have agreed to turn state witness against former attorney general Anand Ramlogan,SC, and who are facing related conspiracy charges. He said since the charges against all three arose from the same factual origin, there was "some symmetery" in Nelson's case and the case against the other two.

"That type of symmetry makes for a heightened degree of sensitivity as far as the carriage of this and those related matters," he said.

"One has to be especially careful to ensure that nothing is done to attract the issue of adverse pre-trial publicity for any of the subjected related parties," he added.

Supporting the application, Nelson’s attorney, Thomas Allen,QC, also added that there was a genuine fear of Nelson’s to his personal security as it was a “highly politically charged case.”

The case has been adjourned to Thursday, when the judge will rule on whether he has accepted the plea agreement deal between the prosecution and the defence. It is then expected that Nelson will plead guilty to three charges of conspiring to commit money laundering, misbehaviour in public office and conspiracy to commit an act of corruption.

Because he has agreed to plead guilty in exchange for his testimony against Ramlogan and Ramdeen in connection with a series of alleged financial transactions and alleged rewards involving legal fees paid to him for representation in state briefs, which he obtained while Ramlogan was attorney general.

Nelson first appeared in the Port of Spain Magistrates' Court on May 2, on the three charges, and the next day Ramlogan and Ramdeen were charged on similar charges relating to the alleged legal fees kickback conspiracy.

They are on $1.2 million and $1.5 million bail respectively and will return to court for a case management hearing on June 28.

The two were jointly charged with conspiracy to contravene the Prevention of Corruption Act; conspiracy to engage in the act of money laundering; and conspiracy to misbehave in public office.